K Hellén-Halme1, M Nilsson, A Petersson. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden. Kristina.Hellen-Halme@od.mah.se
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a field study to survey the performance of digital radiography and how it was used by dentists in general dental practice. METHODS: 19 general dental practitioners were visited at their clinics. Ambient light (illuminance) was measured in the rooms where the monitors were placed. Different technical display parameters were noted. Test images and two phantoms--one low-contrast phantom and one line-pair resolution phantom--were used to evaluate the digital system. How the dentists used the enhancement program was investigated by noting which functions were used. RESULTS: Average illuminance in the operating room was 668 lux (range 190-1250 lux). On radiographs of the low-contrast phantom taken at the clinic, the ability to observe the holes decreased as illuminance increased. On average, the "light percentage" initially set on the monitor had to be decreased by 17% and contrast by 10% to optimize the display of the test images. The general dental practitioners used the enhancement programs most often to alter brightness and contrast to obtain the subjectively best image. Large differences between the clinics were noted. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of how to handle digital equipment in general dental practice should be improved. A calibrated monitor of good quality should be a given priority, as should proper ambient light conditions. There is a need to develop standardized quality controls for digital dental radiography.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a field study to survey the performance of digital radiography and how it was used by dentists in general dental practice. METHODS: 19 general dental practitioners were visited at their clinics. Ambient light (illuminance) was measured in the rooms where the monitors were placed. Different technical display parameters were noted. Test images and two phantoms--one low-contrast phantom and one line-pair resolution phantom--were used to evaluate the digital system. How the dentists used the enhancement program was investigated by noting which functions were used. RESULTS: Average illuminance in the operating room was 668 lux (range 190-1250 lux). On radiographs of the low-contrast phantom taken at the clinic, the ability to observe the holes decreased as illuminance increased. On average, the "light percentage" initially set on the monitor had to be decreased by 17% and contrast by 10% to optimize the display of the test images. The general dental practitioners used the enhancement programs most often to alter brightness and contrast to obtain the subjectively best image. Large differences between the clinics were noted. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of how to handle digital equipment in general dental practice should be improved. A calibrated monitor of good quality should be a given priority, as should proper ambient light conditions. There is a need to develop standardized quality controls for digital dental radiography.
Authors: S Kallio-Pulkkinen; M Haapea; E Liukkonen; S Huumonen; O Tervonen; M T Nieminen Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 2.419